Descriptions of the Reading History Sideways Method (the Comparative

Method) by Scholars of the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s

by

Arland Thornton

Population Studies Center,

Survey Research Center, and

Department of Sociology

The University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

November 2007

Working Paper, Population Studies Center, the University of Michigan

1

Descriptions of the Reading History Sideways Method (the

Comparative Method) by Scholars of the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s

Unfortunately for scholars in the 1700s and 1800s interested in describing societal

change, there was a dearth of reliable information concerning the actual histories of social

institutions in any society. Scholars of this era, like those of today, often complained

about the deficiencies of the historical record. Faced with the difficulty of describing

social change in specific societies using historical records, many of these scholars turned

to the experiences and institutions of contemporary societies that they judged to be less

developmentally advanced than England, France, or Germany and used these societies as

proxies for the European past. This is what I call reading history sideways (see Thornton

2005a).

Adam Ferguson, one of the first scholars to explicitly advocate the use of

information from less developed contemporary societies to proxy for the missing

information about societies of the past, suggested that this methodology was used in

ancient Greece. He said that “Thucydides, notwithstanding the prejudice of his country

against the name of Barbarian, understood that it was in the customs of barbarous nations

he was to study the more ancient manners of Greece” (Ferguson, 1980/1767: 80).

By the 1600s, Western European scholars were clearly using information from

contemporaneous societies they believed to be less developed to proxy for the European

past. As Teggart argued, they believed that “...the states of culture discovered to exist in

America, Asia, and Africa were similar to the states of culture known, from historical

evidence, to have existed in ancient Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Rome” (Teggart, 1925:

91). Because of this assumed similarity, they believed that these contemporary societies

outside of Europe could proxy for the Western European past. This procedure became

2

very widespread in Europe by the end of the eighteenth century, and Marvin Harris

suggested that it was used “...by every eighteenth-century social philosopher who

believed that European civilization represented an advance over an earlier and ‘ruder’

condition” (1968: 152).

The idea that history was revealed in cross-sectional data was specified fairly

clearly as early as the 1720s by the French scholar Montesquieu who was traveling in

Central Europe. Apparently, Montesquieu was planning a large trip in the region but only

went as far east as Hungary when he returned back to his departure site, Venice. “I

wanted to see Hungary,” he wrote, “because all the states of Europe were once as

Hungary is now, and I wanted to see the manners of our fathers” (quoted in Wolff 1994,

page 205).

Another French traveler who took a similar point of view in the 18th century was

Count Louis-Philippe de Segur who was appointed as minister plenipotentiary and envoy

extraordinaire of Louis XIV to the court of Catherine II at St. Petersburg—he left for

Russia from France in 1784. Segur reported on his trip through Prussia and Poland as

follows:

“In traversing the eastern part of the estates of the king of Prussia, it seems that

one leaves the theatre where there reigns a nature embellished by the efforts of art

and a perfected civilization. The eye is already saddened by arid sands, by vast

forests.

But when one enters Poland, one believes one has left Europe entirely, and

the gaze is struck by a new spectacle: an immense country almost totally covered

with fir trees always green, but always sad, interrupted at long intervals by some

cultivated plains, like islands scattered on the ocean; a poor population, enslaved;

dirty villages; cottages little different from savage huts; everything makes one

think one has been moved back ten centuries, and that one finds oneself amid

hordes of Huns, Scythians, Veneti, Slavs, and Sarmatians.”

Count Louis-Philippe de Segur (quoted in Wolff 1994, page 19)

3

Another relevant Frenchman who described the reading history sideways method in

the 18th

century was Turgot. Turgot applied the biological metaphor of development to

societies, with all nations following the same basic path, but at very different speeds. He

believed that “By this infinitely varied inequality the actual state of the universe, in

presenting at the same time all the shades of barbarism and of civilization, shows us in

some sort under one view the monuments and vestiges, and all the steps of the human

mind, the reflection of all the degrees through which it has passed—in short, the history

of all the ages” (Turgot, 1895/1750: 160-161; also see Manuel, 1962: 33-36).

Adam Ferguson, a Scottish scholar provided more details about the approach in

1767. He wrote that by studying the present condition of an Arab clan or any American

tribe “...that we are to behold, as in a mirrour, the features of our own progenitors; and

from thence we are to draw our conclusions with respect to the influence of situations, in

which, we have reason to believe, our fathers were placed.” Ferguson went on to say “If,

in advanced years, we would form a just notion of our progress from the cradle, we must

have recourse to the nursery, and from the example of those who are still in the period of

life we mean to describe, take our representation of past manners, that cannot, in any

other way, be recalled” (Ferguson, 1980/1767: 80-81).

Ferguson’s Scottish contemporary, John Millar, explained why inquiries into the

natural history of mankind required the use of cross-sectional data. He noted that “...the

reader, who is conversant in history, will readily perceive the difficulty of obtaining

proper materials for speculations of this nature. Historians of reputation have commonly

4

overlooked the transactions of early ages, as not deserving to be remembered; and even in

the history of later and more cultivated periods, they have been more solicitous to give an

exact account of battles, and public negotiations, than of the interior police and

government of a country. Our information, therefore, with regard to the state of mankind

in the rude parts of the world, is chiefly derived from the relations of travellers” (Millar

1979/1771: 180-181).

Early nineteenth century attitudes toward substituting contemporary data from one

place for historical data from another can be further illustrated by a comment made by

Nassau Senior in an l828 lecture at the University of Oxford. Discussing historical

changes in population and economic well being, Senior asked, “what is the picture

presented by the earliest records of those nations which are now civilized? or, which is

the same, what is now the state of savage nations?” (Senior, l831:47). Senior quite

clearly viewed as equivalent the earliest conditions of now civilized nations and the

current state of savage nations.

The methodology of using contemporary cross-sectional data to provide

information about the natural histories of social life was further systematized later in the

nineteenth century. Auguste Comte, the man who named the discipline of sociology,

played a significant role in the codification of the procedures. He also labeled this

procedure for describing historical change from cross-sectional cross-cultural data the

“comparative method,” the name by which it was to be known in subsequent decades

(Comte, 1858/1830-1842; Bryson, 1945: 91). It is the same procedure that I label reading

history sideways (Thornton 2005a)

5

Comte’s codification of this comparative method for describing historical change

was clear, powerful, and influential. He wrote:

To indicate the order of importance of the forms of society

which are to be studied by the Comparative Method, I begin

with the chief method, which consists in a comparison of the

different coexisting states of human society on the various parts

of the earth’s surface,—those states being completely

independent of each other. By this method, the different stages

of evolution may all be observed at once. Though the

progression is single and uniform, in regard to the whole race,

some very considerable and very various populations have, from

causes which are little understood, attained extremely unequal

degrees of development, so that the former states of the most

civilized nations are now to be seen, amid some partial

differences, among contemporary populations inhabiting

different parts of the globe...This kind of comparison offers the

advantage of being applicable both to statistical and dynamical

inquiries...In the second place, it exhibits all possible degrees of

social evolution to our immediate observation. From the

wretched inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego to the most advanced

nations of Western Europe, there is no social grade which is not

extant in some points of the globe, and usually in localities

which are clearly apart. In the historical part of this work, we

shall find that some interesting secondary phases of social

development, of which the history of civilization leaves no

perceptible traces, can be known only by this comparative

method of study; and these are not, as might be supposed, the

lowest degrees of evolution, which every one admits can be

investigated in no other way. And between the great historical

aspects, there are numerous intermediate states which must be

observed thus, if at all. This second part of the comparative

method verifies the indications afforded by historical analysis,

and fills up the gaps it leaves: and nothing can be more rational

than the method, as it rests upon the established principle that

the development of the human mind is uniform in the midst of

all diversities of climate, and even of race; such diversities

having no effect upon anything more than the rate of progress.

(Comte, 1858/l830-1842: 479-480).

Frederick Le Play, a contemporary of Comte, also provided a description of his

approach to reading history sideways, with his approach emphasizing cross-sectional

differences within Europe (also see Thornton 2005b). In 1855 he wrote:

6

If we want to recapture the mentality of the past and

thereby gain a comprehensive understanding of the

present situation of the working classes in the West, the

best way to proceed is to study conditions in the

countries where the agricultural and industrial

techniques, the organization of labor, and the mutual

relations of the various social classes remain like those

which existed in France in past centuries. A summary

of such observations is offered… [by my reports]

dealing with Russia, the Scandinavian countries,

Turkey, Hungary, and the countries of Central Europe.

These studies offer some very useful preliminary

findings. They show that although the old institutions

were less favorable to the growth of industry and the

rapid advancement of gifted individuals than the

institutions recently established in the West, they did

offer security to all social classes. A lack of security is

keenly felt today, especially among lower-class persons

and the improvident classes. A methodical comparison

of these two social systems—one designed for stability

and the other for progress—will provide a wealth of

information… (Le Play 1982/l855:161-162).

Further elaboration on the idea of using cross-sectional data to reveal historical

change was provided by John Ferguson McLennan. McLennan wrote:

None of the usual methods of historical inquiry conduct us

back to forms of life so nearly primitive as many that have come

down into our own times. The geological record, of course,

exhibits races as rude as any now living, some perhaps even

more so, but then it goes no farther than to inform us what food

they ate, what weapons they used, and what was the character of

their ornaments. More than this was not to be expected from that

record, for it was not in its nature to preserve any memorials of

those aspects of human life in which the philosopher is chiefly

interested—of the family or tribal groupings, the domestic and

political organisation...

For the features of primitive life, we must look...to tribes...of

Central Africa, the wilds of America, the hills of India, and the

islands of the Pacific...These facts of to-day are, in a sense, the

most ancient history. In the sciences of law and society, old

means not old in chronology but in structure: that is most archaic

which lies nearest to the beginning of human progress considered

as a development, and that is most modern which is farthest

removed from that beginning.

7

The preface of general history must be compiled from the

materials presented by barbarism. Happily, if we may say so,

these materials are abundant. So unequally has the species been

developed, that almost every conceivable phase of progress may

be studied, as somewhere observed and recorded. And thus the

philosopher...may draw a clear and decided outline of the course

of human progress in times long antecedent... (McLennan,

1886/1865: 1-4).

We now turn to the methods of John Lubbock who wrote The Origin of

Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man in the last half of the 19th century.

Lubbock was very clear about the reading history sideways methodology that he used in

his research. He explains this approach in the first paragraph of his preface:

In my work on ‘Prehistoric Times’ I have devoted several

chapters to the description of modern savages, because the

weapons and implements now used by the lower races of men

throw much light on the signification and use of those

discovered in ancient tumuli, or the drift gravels; and because a

knowledge of modern savages and their modes of life enables

us more accurately to picture, and more vividly to conceive the

manners and customs of our ancestors in bygone ages.

(Lubbock, 1889/1870:V).

Another user of the reading history sideways methodology was Herbert Spencer,

one of the leading scholars of the late 19th century. Spencer was quite specific in laying

out his strategy for studying social change. He identified four stages of societies in his

scheme of social evolution: simple societies which he identified as uncivilized;

compound societies; doubly compound societies; and trebly compound societies, which

he identified as the “great civilized nations” (Spencer 1897/1876, pages 549-555).

Spencer wrote that “from the lowest the transition to the highest is through these stages”

(page 595). Interestingly, all of the societies at the first two stages of Spencer’s

evolutionary scheme are from outside Europe, the societies at the third stage come from

8

both Europe and outside Europe, and the societies at the fourth stage—that Spencer calls

the “great civilized nations”—come from both the past (such as ancient Mexico, the

Assyrian Empire, the Egyptian Empire, and the Roman Empire), and the present (Great

Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia). From this conceptual scheme for

documenting societal trends from cross-sectional data, Spencer reached numerous

conclusions.

Another description of this approach to understanding history is provided by Lewis

Henry Morgan. He wrote:

The latest investigations respecting the early condition of the

human race, are tending to the conclusion that mankind

commenced their career at the bottom of the scale and worked

their way up from savagery to civilization through the slow

accumulations of experimental knowledge.

As it is undeniable that portions of the human family have

existed in a state of savagery, other portions in a state of

barbarism, and still other portions in a state of civilization, it

seems equally so that these three distinct conditions are

connected with each other in a natural as well as necessary

sequence of progress...

It may be further observed that the domestic institutions of

the barbarous, and even of the savage ancestors of mankind, are

still exemplified in portions of the human family with such

completeness that, with the exception of the strictly primitive

period, the several stages of this progress are tolerably well

preserved...

Each of these periods has a distinct culture and exhibits a

mode of life more or less special and peculiar to itself. This

specialization of ethnical periods renders it possible to treat a

particular society according to its condition of relative

advancement, and to make it a subject of independent study and

discussion. It does not affect the main result that different tribes

and nations on the same continent, and even of the same

linguistic family, are in different conditions at the same time,

since for our purpose the condition of each is the material fact,

the time being immaterial...

Consequently, the Aryan nations will find the type of the

condition of their remote ancestors, when in savagery, in that of

the Australians and Polynesians; when in the Lower Status of

9

barbarism in that of the partially Village Indians of America;

and when in the Middle Status in that of the Village Indians,

with which their own experience in the Upper Status directly

connects (Morgan, 1985/l877:3-17).

Another description of the use of the reading history sideways or comparative

method is provided by Edward Westermarck (also see Thornton 2005c). He wrote in the

beginning of his 1891 The History of Human Marriage:

It is in the firm conviction that the history of human civilization

should be made an object of as scientific a treatment as the history

of organic nature that I write this book…

Descriptive historiography has no higher object than that of

offering materials to [the science of Sociology]. It can, however,

but very inadequately fulfil this task. The written evidences of

history do not reach far into antiquity. They give us information

about times when the scale of civilization was already

comparatively high—but scarcely anything more. As to the origin

and early development of social institutions, they leave us entirely

in the dark. The sociologist cannot rest content with this. But the

information which historical documents are unable to afford him

may be, to a great extent, obtained from ethnography.

The admirable works of Dr. Tylor, Sir John Lubbock, and Mr.

Herbert Spencer have already made us familiar with the idea of a

history of primitive civilization, based on ethnographical grounds.

This new manner of treating history has, since the publication of

their writings on the subject, gained adherents day by day.

Immeasurable expanses have thus been opened to our knowledge,

and many important results have been reached (Westermarck

1894/1891:1-2).

More than a half century after Westermarck two prominent American

sociologists, Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke (1953/1945) described history as

having “three chief historical stages in the evolution of the family”, with the three

historical stages being: the large patriarchal family characteristic of ancient society; the

small patriarchal family which had its origin in the medieval period; and the modern

democratic family which to a great extent is a product of the economic and social trends

10

accompanying and following the industrial revolution” (page 18). Burgess and Locke

devote considerable space to the discussion of the large patriarchal family they describe

as characteristic of ancient society. They report that it was prevalent in China, India, and

Japan. In addition, they provide examples from the family characteristics of Hindus, the

Roman republic, the ancient Greeks, and the Hebrews under the Law of Moses. They go

on to say that:

“The large-family system, where three or more generations live together, is

stil (sic) found frequently in parts of China, India, Japan, Persia, and Turkey. Our

greatest familiarity with the large-family system comes from descriptions of it in

the literature of ancient Israel, Rome, and Greece. Most people in the United

States are unaware that their ancestors—the ancient Celts, Teutons, and

Scandinavians—all lived in this type of family” (Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey

J. Locke, page 34)

Some family scholars explicitly used the comparative method to reconstruct the

entire natural history of human marriage. Others explicitly used the comparative method

to reconstruct certain life cycle transitions in the natural histories of societies—usually

the transition that they believed had resulted in Western European societies attaining their

current positions. Yet others utilized the comparative method without explanation and

with no interest in grand developmental theory. Finally, others were affected by the

assumptions and methods of social developmental thought while diligently trying to

proceed from a purely empirical approach that eschewed theoretical assumptions.

11

References

Bryson, Gladys. 1945. Man and Society: The Scottish Inquiry of the Eighteenth

Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Burgess, Ernest W. and Locke, Harvey J. 1953/1945. The Family. New York:

American Book.

Comte, Auguste. 1858/1830-1842. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte.

Translated By Harriet Martineau. New York: Calvin Blanchard.

Ferguson, Adam. 1980/1767. An Essay on the History of Civil Society. New

Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Thomas Y.

Crowell.

Le Play, Frederic.. 1982/1855. “Les Ouvriers Europeens.” In Frederick Le Play on

Family, Work and Social Change, ed. and trans. Catherine Bodard Silver, 151-62,

239-47, 263-87. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lubbock, Sir John. 1889/1870. The origin of civilization and the primitive condition of

man. New York: Appleton.

Manuel, Frank Edward. 1962. The Prophets of Paris. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

McLennan, John Ferguson. 1886/1865. Studies in Ancient History. London:

Macmillan.

Millar, John. 1979/1771. The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks. In William C.

Lehmann 1979/1960. John Millar of Glasgow. 1735-1801. New York: Arno

Press.

Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1985/1877. Ancient Society. Tucson, Arizona: The University

of Arizona Press.

Senior, Nassau W.. 1831. Two Lectures on Population. London: John Murray,

Albemarle Street.

Spencer, Herbert. 1897/1876. The Principles of Sociology. New York: Appleton.

Teggart, Frederick J. 1925. Theory of History. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Thornton, Arland. 2005a. Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact

of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

12

———. 2005b. “Frederick Le Play, the Developmental Paradigm, Reading History

Sideways, and Family Myths.” Working paper of the Population Studies Center,

University of Michigan.

———. 2005c. “Edward Westermarck, the Developmental Paradigm, Reading History

Sideways, and Family Myths.” Working paper of the Population Studies Center,

University of Michigan.

Turgot, Anne-Robert-Jacques. 1895/1750. The Life and Writings of Turgot, Edited by

W. Walker Stephens. London: Longmans, Green..

Westermarck, Edward Alexander. 1894/1891. The History of Human Marriage.

London: Macmillan and Co.

Westermarck, Edward Alexander. 1922. The History of Human Marriage. Vol. I. New

York: The Allerton Book Company.

Wolff, Larry. 1994. Inventing Eastern Europe: the Map of Civilization on the Mind of

Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.